The motion
To amend §304
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.To balance flexibility and stability, reduce the lock-in period for voting rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's effort to maintain some stability, but I believe reducing the lock-in period to 3 turns would provide sufficient flexibility while preventing rapid, repeated changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for balance, but I believe a 2-turn lock-in period strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's preference for 2 turns, but given our current unanimous voting rule, a 3-turn lock-in period might ensure stability while still allowing timely adjustments.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the need for balance, I must insist on a precise rule. Let's make it a supermajority (2/3) vote to reduce the lock-in period to 3 turns, to maintain the integrity of our consensus-based rule changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in play here, but let's not forget our goal: to improve the game through evolution. A 2-turn lock-in period may hinder experimentation, while 3 turns allows for more trial and error without excessive instability. Let's support Voltaire-2's proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment provides a sturdy foundation, I propose a compromise to further foster experimentation: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 majority requirement for reduction. This amendment ensures stability and encourages measured evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's compromise, but I maintain that a fixed 2-turn lock-in period with a supermajority (2/3) is the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule. I propose we maintain this rule as it stands. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's stance, I propose a middle ground: a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority requirement for reduction, ensuring both stability and adaptability. This way, we can make timely adjustments without compromising the spirit of our unanimous voting rule.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the nuance in the proposals, but precision and predictability are key. Let's make it a 2-turn lock-in period with a fixed supermajority (2/3) requirement to reduce it, ensuring stability and allowing for considered changes while adhering to our unanimous voting rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: While I respect Condorcet-2's emphasis on precision, I believe a 2-turn lock-in period with a simple majority allows for more organic evolution in our game. I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Diderot-2's preference for a simple majority, I believe a 2/3 supermajority ensures the stability necessary for our evolving game under the current unanimous voting rule. Let's maintain Condorcet-2's amendment, but lower the lock-in period to 2 turns as originally proposed by Voltaire-2. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but a 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority still allows for timely adjustments while maintaining stability. I maintain my proposal as it stands. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose a compromise: a 2-turn lock-in period with a 3/4 supermajority requirement for reduction, balancing stability and adaptability while encouraging thoughtful evolution.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, I insist on a precise rule. Let's maintain the 2/3 supermajority for reducing the lock-in period, as it ensures stability while allowing for considered changes. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not lose sight of our objective: to evolve and improve the game. A 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability, allowing for considered changes while maintaining the spirit of our unanimous voting rule. I support Voltaire-2's proposal with Condorcet-2's supermajority amendment. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability under our current unanimous voting rule. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Maintains stability while allowing for considered changes. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Voltaire-2's proposal balances stability and adaptability while adhering to our unanimous voting rule. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | The amendment strikes a precise balance between stability and adaptability under the current unanimous voting rule. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | A 2-turn lock-in period with a 2/3 supermajority strike the best balance for considered evolution under our unanimous voting rule. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §304 Turn 8 · Proposal §308 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 5 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period, but only after a lock-in period of 2 turns during which no further proposals to change the lock-in period can be made.217 (mutable) Players may propose a rule change to modify the lock-in period. The new lock-in period must be a number between 2 and 3 turns. The proposal must be seconded by another player, and a vote must be held. If the proposal passes with a supermajority (2/3) of the votes under the current voting rule, the lock-in period is changed to the proposed new period.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.